SkyWest Staffing Problem

[USCtrojan]

USCTrojan, you pay union dues to ALPA? Well, thanks for lunch then. I really appreciate it, but I'm still voting no.

Your choice, dude. You're welcome for raising the bar. Assuming this TA goes through, your QOL should go up. Good luck on that Deadhead pay issue. Count on Skynation AND Bus Driver NOT fighting for you.

Trojan

 

[USCtrojan]

whoaa, watch out man! all I've ever said is that I don't support the union and USCschlong-sack has railed on me non-stop.

I never ate the free lunches, however.

No such thing as a free lunch Skynation. Non-stop railing? I disagree with you Skynation, the quip about blowing Jerry? I was joking, sorry to hurt your feelings. Now go wipe your mouth and brush your teeth. I think Jerry's ready for round 2.

Trojan

 

[Soverytired]

If the arbitrator finds that the assignment was not in compliance with the agreement, then he will rule that the termination was without just cause and order the company to reinstate your employment with full back pay.

As an ALPA rep, I always told pilots to "fly it and grieve it" as official advice. However, in situations that I was personally dealing with scheduling about, I would tell them to stick it if they were trying to get me to fly an illegal assignment. .

What a refreshingly well thought out and cordial reply.

It's a different perspective; surely you'll admit though, that part of the reason that the "fly it and grieve it" response is used is because once fired, there are no guarantees. And arbitrator will PROBABLY rule in the pilots favor, but maybe not. Most pilots can't afford to take this risk.

I find it baffling that and expensive and hard fought for labor contract is never really "iron-clad."

 

[PCL_128]

What a refreshingly well thought out and cordial reply.

I have my moments.

It's a different perspective; surely you'll admit though, that part of the reason that the "fly it and grieve it" response is because once fired, there are no guarantees. And arbitrator will PROBABLY rule in the pilots favor, but maybe not. Most pilots can't afford to take this risk.

Agree 100%. This is why you'll always hear an ALPA rep tell a pilot to "fly it and grieve it." There are no guarantees in arbitration. Ask the AAA pilots about that little nugget of wisdom. Arbitration is always at least a small gamble, no matter how well you've assembled your case, and how much of a slam-dunk you think it is. It's up to each pilot to pick and choose his battles, and decide whether the risk is worth it to him.

I find it baffling that and expensive and hard fought for labor contract is never really "iron-clad."

Agreed. The system was designed to keep things moving. The RLA's purpose was always to keep transportation systems moving as best possible while still settling disputes in an organized manner. Hence the system board, arbitration, major disputes, and so on. Unfortunately, that means that management usually has the upper hand. A reworking of the RLA, or a complete replacement, is definitely in order, but we don't have the political power for that right now. Hopefully someday we'll be able to make progress on leveling the playing field. Until then, we play the game as best we can.

 

[Soverytired]

ALPA does work at Mesa. Had it not been for ALPA, your job would have been outsourced to Freedumb a long time ago. ALPA had to spend negotiating capital to protect your job with scope, and the other sections of the agreement had to suffer to "buy" that scope language.

Maybe. Maybe not. Frankly, I think the Freedom "threat" could have been handled in so many better ways. The single carrier petition could have been played out. Or it could have been a rallying point to galvanize the pilots to a strike (and 50 Freedom pilots were not going to replace 1200 Mesa ones). And so forth.

It's a terrible example anyway, because ultimately, Mesa pilots took a concessionary contract at a profitable company and were told "Like it, because it's the best we can do. We can't help it if were were outsmarted and outmaneuvered."

If that's the best ALPA has to offer . . . well, why should Mesa pilots think they're not going to get outmaneuvered AGAIN every 5-7 years?

The blame for this rests with the current bankruptcy laws. The 1113(c) bankruptcy process is heavily weighted in favor of management, and there are no protections for employee pension plans. There simply wasn't enough negotiating leverage to keep the pensions during concessionary bargaining.

Doing so would be a waste of negotiating capital. The pensions would simply be at risk again the next time an airline files for Chapter 11.

The ultimate responsibility of pension loss lays not on ALPA but on BK laws is absolutely correct. However, how can you say that bargaining for them back is a waste of neg capital? Certainly those who saw their pensions drop to nothing would disagree. It WOULD be a waste to current pilots, and certainly to ALPA's coffers and hundreds of guys making +$100k ALPA salaries . . .but what's more important?

Those who worked for decades and contributed millions but now have no voice or ability to ply their trade? Or current pilots who can easily say "tsk tsk, what a shame" then bargain for raises?

Personally, I think ALPA has a moral imperative to recapture at least SOME of what was owed to the retirees. Clearly, we disagree.

At least we've disagreed civilly. A flightinfo first!